Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

RTS essentials

Lucumo

Educated
Joined
May 9, 2021
Messages
637
Thandor (2000) I remember being a sci-fi RTS which I liked. It basically never gets mentioned anywhere, despite being one of the earliest games with 3D stuff. Too bad it flopped..but I guess it was because barely anyone knew it existed?

23372_819_2_full_medium.jpg

man, i've been trying to get Thandor to run for years. i think someone finally figured it out, but ill have to work up the motivation to do surgery on it so i can get it to work on a modern os with modern hardware
There is a website that covers this as well as the patch + link to some fansite. https://www.gamedoctorpc.de/tutorials-spiele-games/spiele-games-t/thandor-die-invasion/

Would try it myself but my copy is buried somewhere in my basement.
 

luj1

You're all shills
Vatnik
Joined
Jan 2, 2016
Messages
12,531
Location
Eastern block
There are 3 great lineages of RTS games


These are the "crafts" (Warcraft/Starcraft), C&C, and "Age of" games (Age of Empires/Mythology)


They each feel different and have innovated in different ways

If there were a 4th, it would have probably been Relic with Impossible Creatures / DoW which introduced a different take on resources and positional control
 

Nutmeg

Arcane
Vatnik Wumao
Joined
Jun 12, 2013
Messages
19,067
Location
Mahou Kingdom
If there were a 4th, it would have probably been Relic with Impossible Creatures / DoW which introduced a different take on resources and positional control
These are Z clones. Z is really quite underrated from what I've played of it.
 

Lucumo

Educated
Joined
May 9, 2021
Messages
637
If there were a 4th, it would have probably been Relic with Impossible Creatures / DoW which introduced a different take on resources and positional control
These are Z clones. Z is really quite underrated from what I've played of it.
IIRC, they started development before Warcraft and C&C were released and established the "classic" RTS formula properly. If it hadn't taken them that long to finish, maybe that particular RTS branch would have been more successful.
 

luj1

You're all shills
Vatnik
Joined
Jan 2, 2016
Messages
12,531
Location
Eastern block
If there were a 4th, it would have probably been Relic with Impossible Creatures / DoW which introduced a different take on resources and positional control
These are Z clones. Z is really quite underrated from what I've played of it.


There is also the Annihilation IP but Idk if its worthy to include among the most influential RTS lineages

What I had hoped to see more were the training elements found in Battle Realms and its clones such as War of the Ring
 

Hag

Arbiter
Patron
Joined
Nov 25, 2020
Messages
1,588
Location
Breizh
Codex Year of the Donut Codex+ Now Streaming!
I have good memories of Dungeon Keepers 2. Did binge its campaign long ago before stopping right before the end as I usually do. Not a RTS expert by any mean but it had a very different vibe from other more classical games. Units were summoned randomly based on the rooms you build. And you could posses any of your creatures at will, turning the game in a FPS, which was very useful sometimes when the AI reached its limits. Also very atmospheric and funny.
 
Joined
May 31, 2018
Messages
2,485
Location
The Present
I really enjoyed the Ground Control series both the original (2000) and Ground Control II (2004). I especially enjoyed the 2nd one. The campaigns were just OK, but the skirmish maps and multiplayer were absolutely phenomenal. Really well balanced units with sensible strengths and weakness. Directional armor, friendly fire, good use of elevation, structures, vegetation, and shadows. GC2 had a really good dynamic where you didn't build bases, but received flown-in reinforcements from purchases. Points to purchase units were based on your ability to hold map points, destroy enemies units, and endure losses. The more you were able to accomplish with less, the more points you earn. It's a game that was easy to learn but difficult to master. While GC1 was pretty good, GC2 is one of my all time picks for best RTS games.
 
Last edited:

ValeVelKal

Arcane
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
1,604
It is already in your list, but the solo campaign of Original War is (in my opinion) the best solo campaign of any RTS - bar none. It has a real choices and consequences, and your performance has long term impact, both for your guys (if you lose Bob map #3, you won't have Bob map #4, but there are enough characters that you can carry on without being in a walking dead scenario) and for the opposition (if you kill Dimitri map #3, the enemy won't ever have Dimitri again). I have no idea how the game fares in multiplayer.

The multiplayer RTS I prefered is Wargame Red Dragon. No base building, very complex and atypical game, so I am less confident to recommend it than Original War. Though if you love RTS you should love it, I suppose.

I always preferred Cossacks to Age of Empires. There is nothing like seeing your formation of hundred of pikemen or grenadiers march toward the enemy, and then half of them die in seconds because the enemy has a lot of guns.

Those would be my 3 "essentials".

In general, I really think the "no base building" RTS are more interesting than "base building" RTS as it is 100% about adapting to the situation rather than 50% adaptation 50% mastering the optimum build order. Among the other great "no base building RTS" there is Myth and < some > of the Blitzkrieg games (Barbarossa, Stalingrad, ...). They are not essentials, just very good fun.

I did a lot of research on the contenders for the title of first RTS, and my very educated opinion is that the first "real" RTS was Cytron Masters in 1982. I did an AAR and a review on my blog. It did not age well at all, but you can play a session of 15 minutes directly on archive.org and see where we come from.
(https://zeitgame.net/archives/3414)

Also, for a history of the history of RTS (that's not a typo), see that article also from my blog.
 

Nutmeg

Arcane
Vatnik Wumao
Joined
Jun 12, 2013
Messages
19,067
Location
Mahou Kingdom
Hello thread, long time no see

Rise of Legends (2006)

Just completed the campaign yesterday. In total, it took me 12 hours spread over the course of 2 days.

Rise of Legends seems to have began its development as an iteration upon Rise of Nations, the full title of the game still bearing the latter name, and various game files still referring to it as Rise of Nations 2. If the first game is a precious gem covered in dirt with no way for players to remove the dirt, this game is the gem with the dirt removed. For the exact nature of the dirt, see my comments on the first game.

The dirt, in this case, is removed by making economic development less about mechanically racing to secure a technological leap over the opponent along a number of interchangeable strands of development, but about tailoring your position and battlefield options to meet the opponent's strategy.

This economic game is a step further from Age of Empires strand of RTS design and a step closer to the Z or Herzog Zwei strand (Dawn of War, Company of Heroes). Like Age of Mythology, cities must be built on explicit pre-defined points, but unlike any Age of game, cities are no longer generic resource drop off points for generic villagers, but rather generate a commerce (or power, for one of the factions) resource, per unit of time according to the level of investment, similar to strategic points in Dawn of War or Company of Heroes. Rise of Legends also adds once off bonus resources in the form of research points acquired through city (i.e. strategic point) development, which is unique to the game. City development also, with no additional input from the player, equals fortification development. The other "over time" resource in the game -- "timonium" -- is also acquired by exploiting predefined points (in the visual form of brilliant blue crystal deposits) by building and investing in mines, with the twist that they must already be in your "national borders". Like cities, mines also become more fortified as they develop, but to a much, much lesser degree.

There is also a bit of Blizzard here, specifically Warcraft 3, in the form of a large array of neutral buildings to capture and importance placed on hero development, although of course not to the same, almost genre escaping degree concerning the latter.

As for the campaign itself, at first glance it looks similar to The Dark Crusade's or the first Rise of Nations' campaign, so you may think it makes for a nice skirmish game generator. Comparing to the former, the main differences are that there are three different game boards, each with a mandatory initial mission, less possibilities for the player's initial move, and the AI "players" not at all playing by the same rules. A very important aspect to the first difference, and what keeps the campaign from being a good skirmish game generator, is all three boards consist solely of symmetric faction match ups with the game's three factions -- the Vinci, Alin and Cuotl. Not to mention that you only get to play on a subset of the terrain types available in skirmish. Moreover, unless you go out of your way to develop your campaign resources for the sake of it by map painting, you don't actually get to play with all the units the faction has to offer, making the campaign not function very well as an extended tutorial either. Finally, when you unlock a unit upgrade in the campaign board, you start maps with the upgrade already applied (which means you can complete most campaign maps by rushing with your elite starting army), instead of with the ability to research the upgrade during the course of the map. This effectively moves a key component of "teching" out of the maps and into the board, making the campaign games different and incomplete in an important way compared to skirmish or multiplayer games. Likewise for Hero development.

This schizophrenic campaign design is present in its presentation as well, where matters are even more half baked. In terms of presentation, you are given what are today horribly compressed videos, some which could have been in-engine, that imply character and plot development that I suppose is meant to happen during the course of playing the campaign map, but simply does not. Which is strange because, what's there suggests some effort and resources were expended in an attempt to follow the standard set by Blizzard, but it's not very complete. Or perhaps at some point during development they switched from a linear campaign back to a Rise of Nations style one, but didn't decide to rework the presentation to match the more limited requirements of this approach, and instead cobbled together what they had from the old approach. In any case, these observations don't affect my thoughts on the game at all, as I hardly care for such things.

These comments on presentation being half baked only apply to the campaign. The unit and city models are wonderful and very professionally done, likewise for the music, though a tad bombastic as par on course. It's very mid 00s US West Coast entertainment design (with all the good and bad that entails), with only the slightest smidgen of the more offensive (to my tastes) mass produced game art tropes sneaking in here and there like a mistake on an Amish quilt. If you ignore the very lacking and even detrimental world building done through the campaign, what's present in the art itself during games is very unique and well conveyed for the genre. You get a real feeling of fantasy rennaisance era Arab and European trading companies competing for new world or frontier resources, with the playable fantasy Mesoamericans being a nice bonus. Of course I have my critiques here as well (Alin have too many competing motifs, and the Cuotl are too "it was aliens"), but the overall impression is quite positive.
 
Last edited:

Nutmeg

Arcane
Vatnik Wumao
Joined
Jun 12, 2013
Messages
19,067
Location
Mahou Kingdom
Anyone played Rise of Legends? Underated imo.
I have no idea why it's so dead. On Youtube, I found some guy made a short review recently (must be some kind of e-celeb, because there are hundreds of reaction videos to his video, which is something I will never understand) a Russian guy with poor quality recordings of a dozen or so multiplayer games played between 2019 and 2021, and some Iranian-American guy that recorded some skirmish games against the AI around 2017.

I would say because it isn't on Steam or GOG, and sheeple today don't pirate anything.
 

Nutmeg

Arcane
Vatnik Wumao
Joined
Jun 12, 2013
Messages
19,067
Location
Mahou Kingdom
I really enjoyed the Ground Control series both the original (2000) and Ground Control II (2004). I especially enjoyed the 2nd one. The campaigns were just OK, but the skirmish maps and multiplayer were absolutely phenomenal. Really well balanced units with sensible strengths and weakness. Directional armor, friendly fire, good use of elevation, structures, vegetation, and shadows. GC2 had a really good dynamic where you didn't build bases or have resources, but received flown-in reinforcements based on your ability to hold map points, destroy enemies units, and endure losses, and balance resources. A game that was easy to learn but difficult to master. While GC1 was pretty good, GC2 is one of my all time picks for best RTS games.
Interesting, searching youtube I was able to find a handful of recordings of multiplayer matches of the first game, but none of the second. At a glance, the first game's maps also look more interesting with regards to elevation. Also, the second game has absolutely ridiculous voice acting where all the units speak in a culturally stunted European's understanding of Australian english, both in terms of accent and turns of phrase. I don't think I would be able to bear that for very long.

Have you played World in Conflict from the same developer? How would you compare them? I have mixed feelings on how World in Conflict's multiplayer was structured like an arena FPS server (map rotation, with players dropping in and out of games), and with players only controlling a very small handful of units at a time. I also thought making the factions completely symmetrical with only cosmetic differences was disappointing, though understandable.

Anyway, you will be happy to know that I've re-organized the opening posts and added both games.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 5, 2021
Messages
389
If you mention Starcraft (one of the most overrated games of all time) but don't mention Total Annihilation, you fucked up
Cry and moan all you want while I watch ASL running right now, enjoying the best competitive RTS action ever.

"The game is good because it's purposely difficult and annoying to play, nothing works right and the game is super limiting"

- Actual logic from actual StarCraft players.
 

Malakal

Arcane
Glory to Ukraine
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
10,227
Location
Poland
If you mention Starcraft (one of the most overrated games of all time) but don't mention Total Annihilation, you fucked up
Cry and moan all you want while I watch ASL running right now, enjoying the best competitive RTS action ever.

"The game is good because it's purposely difficult and annoying to play, nothing works right and the game is super limiting"

- Actual logic from actual StarCraft players.

Its a tricky balancing act between 'game plays by itself the player is not required' and 'you have to do every single minute detail' but you do understand that actually playing the game is the point?
 

Justinian

Arcane
Developer
Joined
Oct 21, 2022
Messages
251
Forged Battalion - C&C style rts where you design your own units. Unfortunately was rushed and is still rather unpolished and poorly balanced, but still fun given the lack of decent RTSs in recent years.

Tooth and Tail - swarmer/rts hybrid. you lead one commander unit that can build buildings that produce units, capture important points to produce resources and troops follow the commander around and fight on their own.

Risen Kingdom - Obscure indie rts with Kingdom Rush graphics, fun to play for an evening or two but would probably wait for a sale.
 

ArchAngel

Arcane
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
19,694
There are 3 great lineages of RTS games


These are the "crafts" (Warcraft/Starcraft), C&C, and "Age of" games (Age of Empires/Mythology)


They each feel different and have innovated in different ways

If there were a 4th, it would have probably been Relic with Impossible Creatures / DoW which introduced a different take on resources and positional control
C&C and Crafts are same game just with less or more micro.
3 lineages are:
1. C&C and craft type games
2. TA and Supreme Commander type games
3. CoH and WH40k DoW type games

I could see Age type game in either 1 or 2 since they are very slow and focus more on economy and bigger battles which is more 2 type.
 

Sensuki

Arcane
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
9,799
Location
New North Korea
Codex 2014 Serpent in the Staglands Shadorwun: Hong Kong A Beautifully Desolate Campaign
What I had hoped to see more were the training elements found in Battle Realms and its clones such as War of the Ring

Battle Realms was very cool. One of my favourites from the early 2000s. It had a few interesting mechanics - one was the training mechanic as you mentioned. You make peasants from the 'Town Center' equivalent and have them collect resources (rice, water for replenishing the rice fields) and then build buildings of which you send the peasants to train at those buildings to turn into a new unit and you need to train a unit multiple times - once each at different buildings to 'upgrade' it to a next tier unit, or equip with a special attack. To turn a Dragon peasant into a Samurai it required training at all 3 main buildings, and then also possibly at another building to equip a special ability - really liked the design for that. It was also cool how the 3rd tier unit (Samurai, for instance) wasn't OP and was weaker vs one type of the second tier unit from memory. The balance wasn't perfect, I think Lotus seemed a bit more OP than other factions but it was still pretty good.

The second thing that was pretty cool, connected to the first mechanic was you could send villagers to herd horses, and then train a unit at the stable to mount it on a horse. From memory, I think every unit could mount a horse, but I think the Wolf clan ate the horses and you got wolves instead, or something like that.

The third thing that definitely stood out to me was that the game completely obfuscated any numbers whatsoever aside from like your rice count. Units had a HP bar (and some a mana bar) and when they took damage from another unit, it was very easy to read how much damage they took based on the amount they lost from their HP bar, and it was easy to tell how much a 'spell' cost (which I recall did not require micro from the player, the unit automatically used special abilities themselves) by the amount it reduced from their mana bar. It was easy to figure out what units countered what simply based off how they performed. The UI for these bars was very well designed and didn't feel like it was hard to follow or that it got in the way of battle.

The animations for the units in this game were absolutely fantastic as well.

The factions were all distinct and had different 'feels' in terms of visuals, as well as mechanical differences between the units as well. I think Serpent was my favourite faction and I loved going mass Fan Geishas in multiplayer against my friends.
 
Last edited:

Sensuki

Arcane
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
9,799
Location
New North Korea
Codex 2014 Serpent in the Staglands Shadorwun: Hong Kong A Beautifully Desolate Campaign
I think Age of Empires 2 is my favourite. The best thing about it IMO is the complexity of the late game. Particularly in something like a 4vs4 team game that's gone to post-imperial age and it's pretty even. There's several large battles going on at once, dings all over the minimap. There's so many things going on that you'll never be able to be everywhere at once making the correct decisions/actions. Very challenging but very rewarding!
 
Joined
Jan 5, 2021
Messages
389
Its a tricky balancing act between 'game plays by itself the player is not required' and 'you have to do every single minute detail' but you do understand that actually playing the game is the point?

The issue is that a strategy game should be about strategy. You should be expected to outplay your opponent. RTS games that make themselves all about stutter-stepping, fighting with unit AI, and generally fighting with the game mechanics in order to actually accomplish anything just get in the way of the strategy and make it more tedious to pull off, which makes for horrible gameplay. All RTS games have various degrees of this, but StarCraft with it's limited unit selection, extremely wonky AI, super zoomed-in camera and general jankiness is very micro-intensive, which I feel has a major negative effect on it's depth and strategy, which is why I feel like it's extremely overrated. People like to focus on the atmosphere, balance and story, which are all good, but the actual gameplay is very crusty and outdated and people can't see it because of nostalgia.

Games like Supreme Commander, which let you automate basic unit creation and focus on things like resource management offer a lot more opportunities for strategy and depth as a result. It's a smart-persons RTS.

Dota is probably the best of both worlds in this regard. Although it suffers from a related problem where the super micro-intensive characters are about as effective as the ones who play themselves, so there's no real benefit to taking the hundreds of hours required to master a hero like Chen or Meepo unless that complex playstyle somehow appeals to you.

This push towards more automation and more focus on strategy has been a slow, gradual goal for RTS games in general. One could argue that things like Attack-Move, Formations, control groups, and other essential RTS features are "automation", and since they weren't in older RTS games, it's clear that people care about these things because they want to actually play the game, not spend hours memorising keystrokes and mastering tiny nuances of AI.

In this regard, StarCraft is the vim or RTS games, except that vim is useful and powerful, StarCraft is just old and crusty. Great campaign, though. Just a shame about the gameplay.

On a related note, this is also why fighting games are objectively terrible and only stupid people like them.
 

Nutmeg

Arcane
Vatnik Wumao
Joined
Jun 12, 2013
Messages
19,067
Location
Mahou Kingdom
The issue is that a strategy game should be about strategy. You should be expected to outplay your opponent. RTS games that make themselves all about stutter-stepping, fighting with unit AI, and generally fighting with the game mechanics in order to actually accomplish anything just get in the way of the strategy and make it more tedious to pull off, which makes for horrible gameplay. All RTS games have various degrees of this, but StarCraft with it's limited unit selection, extremely wonky AI, super zoomed-in camera and general jankiness is very micro-intensive, which I feel has a major negative effect on it's depth and strategy, which is why I feel like it's extremely overrated. People like to focus on the atmosphere, balance and story, which are all good, but the actual gameplay is very crusty and outdated and people can't see it because of nostalgia.

Games like Supreme Commander, which let you automate basic unit creation and focus on things like resource management offer a lot more opportunities for strategy and depth as a result. It's a smart-persons RTS.

Dota is probably the best of both worlds in this regard. Although it suffers from a related problem where the super micro-intensive characters are about as effective as the ones who play themselves, so there's no real benefit to taking the hundreds of hours required to master a hero like Chen or Meepo unless that complex playstyle somehow appeals to you.

This push towards more automation and more focus on strategy has been a slow, gradual goal for RTS games in general. One could argue that things like Attack-Move, Formations, control groups, and other essential RTS features are "automation", and since they weren't in older RTS games, it's clear that people care about these things because they want to actually play the game, not spend hours memorising keystrokes and mastering tiny nuances of AI.

In this regard, StarCraft is the vim or RTS games, except that vim is useful and powerful, StarCraft is just old and crusty. Great campaign, though. Just a shame about the gameplay.
IMO, there's no necessary causal relationship between fussy unit micro as in Starcraft, and constraints to player attention (camera zoom) or constraints to player command (absence of order queuing).

Not sure what you meant by DOTA being the best of both worlds (which worlds?) but now that it's come up, have you played Airmech? It's a modern take on Herzog Zwei, not a MOBA, but it's similar enough to compare in the context of this discussion. Better yet is to compare it to a typical, what I call, "abstract cursor of command" RTS (as distinct from a "reified cursor of command" RTS like Sacrifice, Citizen Kabuto (? I think) or Airmech). Airmech is a lesson on how even extreme command constraints do not mean a lack of strategy, or even fussy, high APM micro. In fact, because the "cursor" is actually a game object (kind of hero unit), it has a speed of movement limit (much lower than what non geriatrics can achieve with a mouse) which puts a hard ceiling on unit micro APM. The result is that, with a little bit of practice, even a beginner will be on an even APM playing field with the best players. Now how intelligent they are with their micro ration, and if their speed of thought can keep up, is a wholly separate matter.

So while I agree that RTS shouldn't be about APM, they can be about rationing commands and attention without making themselves less strategic (I haven't really talked about the latter, but Company of Heroes is an example of a low APM game where the camera only lets you see a small fraction of the big picture), and in fact enforcing limits to both can actually make the game less about APM.
 
Last edited:

Nutmeg

Arcane
Vatnik Wumao
Joined
Jun 12, 2013
Messages
19,067
Location
Mahou Kingdom
Friends, I just finished the United States, GLA and China campaigns in Command & Conquer: Generals - Zero Hour (2003).

I consider this the true sequel to Command & Conquer (1995), capturing its spirit in both play and theme. Like C&C 95, the campaigns are about as good as you can get given the state of AI technology of the time (and today as well, really). I especially enjoyed China mission 3, which is genuinely challenging and unique from what I've played across the genre (there's a time limit, but you extend it by destroying certain buildings as checkpoints), and USA mission 4 (there's a trick to it as I found out later, but if you don't know it, it's also very challenging). Except for a couple of missions you can cheese (more on that later), all are very carefully designed with the developers obviously aware of cheese strats and countering them, sometimes hamfistedly. The whole spectrum of mission types is present, from prison breaks, to escorts, to matches against AIs playing with the handicaps of a pre-built base and hard points scattered throughout the map. Especially nice is how most missions reward player exploration with resources in exchange for taking down pre-placed units.

Overall, I enjoyed the GLA campaign as a whole the most, maybe due to novelty, as they're the most unique of the three factions when comparing to previous factions in the C&C series. Aside from cool units like the bikers which interact with the 3D terrain in a way no other unit does (really shows off the engine), the fact that vehicle units are upgraded by collecting vehicle carcasses, and a focus on teleporting around the map through tunnel network buildings, among many other things, what makes them unique compared to the other two factions is that they lack air units. This is especially important for single player enjoyment and challenge because air units (especially helicopters) are the AI's weakness (the AI simply does not react to you massing air units as it does with you doing other stuff) and trivialize the few campaign missions where they are available to build (thankfully, the devs seem to have been cognizant this and disabled air units in the majority of the other two faction's campaign missions).

The other two factions have their own charms, with the US focusing on unit customization (come to think of it, Dawn of War might have lifted this from Generals), and China playing the most like a typical C&C faction from earlier games.

In addition to the faction campaigns, there is the General's challenge, where you play 6 or 7 matches as one of the 9 (3 per faction) generals introduced in the expansion against the other generals, capped with a match against some kind of game mode specific boss general. Generals here are faction modifiers in the same way as civilizations in AoE2 are modifiers of that game's one faction. I haven't completed even one such challenge, so I can't comment, but it's worth noting it to give an idea of how much single player content there is.

Now, aside from being the first C&C game to have 3 wholly distinct factions, it is also the first (and only?) C&C game to have builder units, making it the black sheep in terms of UI in the series - no side panel - and, as a result, also parts of play - no primary produciton buildings. Paired with how the GLA's buildings and workers look, you could be forgiven for thinking it's an "Age of" game from some screenshots. The Age of influence is also there in the eponymous, Generals game "mechanic", which is lifted straight from Age of Mythology where it's called god powers (was AoM really the first game with this mechanic?).

Finally, it's the first game on the SAGE engine, that would power EA LA's (formerly Westwood's) Battle for Middle Earth games and Tiberium Wars. It's a very nice engine, that's aged well due to receiving love from the community, for this game in the form of "gentool", a utility facilitating higher resolutions and, optionally, tasteful replacement UI graphics (though the originals are just fine when scaled). I really love playing PC games made in this era of 3D graphics at 4K with 8x AA and 16x Anisotropic filtering. The graphics literally scale perfectly, and IMO look better than many modern games especially when considering the functional aspect of graphics such as readability.

Did I mention the music? The game has excellent, excellent music, esp. the GLA and China music, which is worth listening to even when not playing.

Overall, I think this displaces C&C 95 as my favorite single player RTS campaign. Excellent game. Highly recommended.
 
Last edited:

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom